Skip to content

[PAXEXAM-674] Configurations and probe builders do not need to be static #72

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
vorburger wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[PAXEXAM-674] Configurations and probe builders do not need to be static #72

vorburger wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@vorburger
Copy link
Member

@vorburger vorburger commented May 22, 2017

  • Repair the parameterized runner for non-PerMethod strategies.
  • Add an integration test for parameterized PAX configurations.
  • Format the code with the right formatter.

@vincent-zurczak @vorburger
[PAXEXAM-674] Configurations and probe builders do not need to be static
cc9ab7a 
- Repair the parameterized runner for non-PerMethod strategies.
- Add an integration test for parameterized PAX configurations.
- Format the code with the right formatter.
grgrzybek
grgrzybek reviewed May 22, 2017
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@grgrzybek grgrzybek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Too long to review now ;) Give me some time...

@vorburger
Copy link
Member Author

vorburger commented May 22, 2017

Oh, there already was #45 .. just noticing that now. I'm confused, because comments in #45 said this was actually breaking as much as fixing... but the CircleCI build just passed, so... we're good, we can merge this?

@ANierbeck
Copy link
Member

ANierbeck commented May 22, 2017

unfortunately I fear the circle ci might not be "feature" complete regarding testing,
with jenkins we do have some matrix tests:
http://ci.ops4j.org/jenkins/job/org.ops4j.pax.exam-4.x-itest/

@vorburger
Copy link
Member Author

vorburger commented May 23, 2017

Abandon, for now.

@vorburger vorburger closed this May 23, 2017
@ops4j-issues ops4j-issues mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2021
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@grgrzybek grgrzybek grgrzybek left review comments

@hwellmann hwellmann Awaiting requested review from hwellmann

@cschneider cschneider Awaiting requested review from cschneider

@jamie-kemp jamie-kemp Awaiting requested review from jamie-kemp

@arunan-interlink arunan-interlink Awaiting requested review from arunan-interlink

@ANierbeck ANierbeck Awaiting requested review from ANierbeck

@ffang ffang Awaiting requested review from ffang

@gnodet gnodet Awaiting requested review from gnodet

@oliverlietz oliverlietz Awaiting requested review from oliverlietz

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@vorburger @ANierbeck @grgrzybek @vincent-zurczak